Regina v George Adler [2002] NSWCCA 180

Regina v George Adler [2002] NSWCCA 180

The trial judge erred by directing the jury to dismiss from their minds any suggestion that the money changed hands as a loan. Although there was no positive evidence of a loan, the loan hypothesis was a rational alternative explanation open on the whole of the evidence, and removing it from the jury's consideration could have affected the assessment of an essential element of the offences. The Court was not satisfied that a properly instructed jury would inevitably or necessarily have convicted, so the proviso was not applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Convictions and Sentences
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Obtaining by Deception' 'jury Directions' 'alternative Hypothesis' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'relevance of Evidence' 'criminal Appeal Proviso']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['dishonestly Obtaining by Deception' 'jury Directions' 'alternative Hypothesis' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'relevance of Evidence' 'criminal Appeal Proviso']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Convictions and Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in allowing evidence that the appellant had not repaid money borrowed from Mr Sinclair.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that they could entirely dismiss from their minds any thoughts of the money changing hands as a result of a loan.' 'Whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by directing the jury to dismiss from their minds any suggestion that the money changed hands as a loan. Although there was no positive evidence of a loan, the loan hypothesis was a rational alternative explanation open on the whole of the evidence, and removing it from the jury's consideration could have affected the assessment of an essential element of the offences. The Court was not satisfied that a properly instructed jury would inevitably or necessarily have convicted, so the proviso was not applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The convictions on the eleven counts in the indictment are quashed.' 'There is to be a new trial.']